Posts by Flame Boar 13 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Mar 2010
Apple certainly has the money to spend on Intel's 5G biz, but the question is whether this will produce a 5G modem that is competitive with QCOM's offerings. Developing hardware in house is expensive and Intel could not produce a QCOM equivalent 5G modem, so I question if Apple can benefit by bringing the development effort in-housr.
I haven't trusted FB for years, but this crap is beyond the pale. I really do not believe that FB management understands the term "ethics". Even if the "opt in" consent form was very clear (which it was NOT), saying that a 13 year old could comprehend that they were giving FB 100% access to everything that they do or say is ludicrous. I wonder how FB was able to get parental consent. Zuckerberg and Sandberg are highly compensated con artists. What truly amazes me is that they believe that their BS doesn't stink.
I worked in South Korea from 1993 through 1998. At first I used my OKI900 analog phone. I switched to a Samsung SCH4400 CDMA phone in 1998 after Korea went digital. There is a tag on the back of the phone and reads: Digital by QUALCOMM. In 2007, I got a Samsung SCH-M600 when I was back in South Korea. This was also a CDMA phone.
Qualcomm has been licensing technology to Korean companies for almost 20 years, therefore I find it surprising that they just realized that QUALCOMM's practices were unfair.
The iOS seems to have a few security holes. When Tim Cook recorded his TV response to the FBI's request to hack a terrorists' phone, one was left with the impression that Apple's security was really bullet-proof. Tim Cook may have believed that, but reality has made his display of chest pounding, at best, extremely embarrassing. This MDM vulnerability only increases the embarrassment.
The point is that when one sees the request for confirmation frequently, particularly with what looks to be a legitimate MDM request why should one not expect a programmed "Yes" from users?
Your average corporate user certainly knows how to use programs and apps, but no one should infer from this that the average user is cognoscente of what goes on in the background.
The dustup between Tim Cook and the FBI created quite a bit of press, both pro and con on both sides. The standoff which this created provided the opportunity for a 3rd party to walk on scene and hack the phone for the FBI. This is exactly what happened and Apple should have considered this possibility when they faced off against the FBI with much public fanfare.
Apple should have at the very least considered the possibility that their encryption was not perfect. After all, what encryption is perfect? The belief in the perfection of ones creations has been the downfall of many companies. This sort of hubris on the part of Tim Cook does not exactly qualify him for the role of Apple God.
Instead of making a public display of Tim Cook chest pounding to the cheers of their fanbois, Apple could have quietly worked with the FBI and in so doing found the holes in their security so that they could plug them. Even if word got out of such a joint effort, Apple could have made the point that their security was improved by working with the FBI. Instead a 3rd party found the holes in Apple's security and exploited them, leaving Apple in the unenviable position of begging the FBI to tell them what holes they exploited to crack the terrorist's phone. After Tim Cook's chest pounding, the FBI is likely to tell Apple to go pound sand.
This entire episode leaves me with the impression that Tim Cook is a long way from filling the empty shoes of the Apple God.
In politics, it is the appearance of impropriety that counts. When the head investigator has connections to groups which are pushing the same agenda as the CRU at UEA, then the appearance is not one of impartiality. It would appear that this is a pre-arranged exoneration of UEA rather than an investigation.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
